Pakistan/India compromise needed to win Afghan war
An intriguing geopolitical chess match is being played out between two nuclear rivals, Pakistan and India, over the future of Afghanistan, the outcome of which will markedly shape the nature of the Afghan nation for the long term – an end state that could fall anywhere between stable and rogue.
And while a Chinese paper reported today that the U.S. relies on Pakistan more to fight the war on terror than India, and that the U.S. only talks to India because they want them to ease tensions with Pakistan, the reality is long-term the U.S. will rely on India for a multitude of things beyond counter-terrorism, including climate change, checking China's rising global economic status, and nuclear proliferation. In the short-term, President Obama needs both countries to implement a regional strategy in Central Asia.
India desperately wants to see the current “Democratically-elected” regime in Afghanistan persevere, whereas Pakistan is not all that crazy about Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government because it seems to be strategically aligning itself with India more and more each day. The reality is that Pakistan would rather see the Afghan Taliban in power as opposed to a “pro-Indian” administration. Pakistan has a dual strategy that consists of defeating extremists at home on one hand while supporting the Afghan Taliban with the other.
The U.S. is very well aware of this and will leverage its power with both Pakistan and India to coerce the best alternative possible; however, American influence has its limits. The U.S. will not be able to simply dictate the terms of a comprehensive regional solution that guarantees a secure and perdurable Afghan sovereignty. Ultimately, the U.S. will have to rely on the two neighboring adversaries putting aside 60 years of conflict and coming to some type of a settlement, which at times seems as likely as Israel and Palestine burying the hatchet.
The Obama administration’s goal in Afghanistan is a minimum level of stability that will prevent the incubation of transnational extremist groups who could pose an existential threat to the United States. In order to stabilize Afghanistan two major ingredients are necessary: security and economy.
In order to make Afghanistan secure, U.S. military intervention is required. And in order to effectively conduct war in the region, the U.S. cannot do anything without Pakistan. The U.S. needs Pakistan to fight the Tehrik-i-Taliban within their own country, cease acting as a safe haven for the Afghanistan Taliban, provide intelligence on terrorist targets, act as a base for the U.S. to supply resources and supplies into a landlocked Afghanistan, and act as a refueling zone and assault launch pad.
Thus, the U.S. must kowtow to Pakistan in a way, as Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria recently wrote: “Since Washington desperately needs Pakistan's cooperation in that conflict, it is tending to adopt Pakistan's concerns as its own, which is producing a perverse view of the region.”
However, the second ingredient, a functioning economy, will primarily come from India, who already has sunk over $1 billion of development aid into Afghanistan to build schools and infrastructure. The bottom line is that the U.S. cannot effectively reconstruct the country without India’s help. Mr. Zakaria elaborates:
India is the hegemon of South Asia, with enormous influence throughout the subcontinent. Its GDP is 100 times that of Afghanistan (that is not a typo). As Afghanistan opened itself up after the fall of the Taliban, the cuisine, movies, and money that flowed into the country were, naturally, Indian. This is like noting that the United States has had growing influence in Mexico over the last few decades.
The tension is so high between the two rivals that Pakistan is wary of diverting troops from its eastern border with India. U.S. military brass seem a bit concerned that too close alignment with India could compromise the American mission. Pakistan feels like they are being pinched by India from two sides. Pakistan’s General Ashfaq Kayani told the U.S. National Security Adviser Jim Jones that the presence of India in Kabul would hurt the war objectives. In a confidential report sent to Obama General Stanley McChrystal spelled out the notion clearly that must have come as a bit of a shock to India:
Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment. In addition, the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India.
The strategic dilemma is captured by Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, saying that the positions and attitudes of both India and Pakistan towards one another have not improved as of late but rather – have regressed:
Now India and Pakistan are both playing for broke. Pakistan says it will support a U.S. regional strategy that does not include India, while India is talking about a regional alliance with Iran and Russia that excludes Pakistan. Both positions — throwbacks to the 1990s, when neighboring states fueled opposing sides in Afghanistan’s civil war — are non-starters as far as helping the U.S.-NATO alliance bring peace to Afghanistan
What is even more maddening is that the more success the Taliban have in Afghanistan, the closer Pakistan leans towards supporting them. And if Pakistan detects a scintilla of hesitance on the U.S. part to stay the course and win the war, they will most assuredly turn the other way, figuring that the Afghan Taliban will eventually emerge victorious and fill the vacuum if the U.S. withdraws.
Many with a surface understanding of the situation believe a simple quid pro quo can quell both sides - if India compromised by relinquishing portions of Kashmir in exchange for Pakistan aggressively pursuing and bringing to justice all the members of the terrorist group that planned the Mumbai attack, Lashkar-e-Taiba. Yet, even with the U.S. “fast tracking” negotiations, the Kashmir issue wouldn’t be settled for years - assuming it could be settled at all. Besides, India would want more assurances from Pakistan than a few just-for-show public prosecutions. They would need evidence of a more concerted effort on Pakistan's part to implement systemic counterterrorism measures.
President Obama must somehow tiptoe through a land mine to soothe India-Pakistani relations in order to achieve both America’s short-term military objectives by placating Pakistan, as well as long-term global interests by assuaging India. Somehow Obama will need to ensure the Afghan government has Taliban representation in order to make Pakistan happy. Here Zakaria points out that the U.S. must make sure it doesn't lose sight of the broader regional geostrategy:
Obama must keep in mind that South Asia is a tar pit filled with failed and dysfunctional states, save for one long-established democracy of 1.2 billion people that is the second-fastest-growing major economy in the world, a check on China's rising ambitions, and a natural ally of the United States. The prize is the relationship with India. The booby prize is governing Afghanistan.
India should feel the same way because a long-term relationship with the United States is a huge prize indeed, and squabbling with Pakistan over the makeup of the Afghan government, especially in the short-term, is not worth the risk. And the U.S. needs to take care of first things first – which is ensuring we get Pakistan's assistance on the military front.
Perhaps behind closed doors Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Obama worked out a secret strategy. Perhaps it consists of the United States doing everything in its power to mollify Pakistan – or at least give that impression – and give that impression to such an extent that Pakistan actually buys into it.
India must take as conciliatory a posture as possible with Pakistan so they are willing to crackdown on terror within its own borders and the no man’s land on its border with Afghanistan. India should be flexible and cooperative if Pakistan does want Taliban representation in the Afghan government eventually, and India must do everything in its power to eliminate the perception that the Afghan government is pro-Indian. India can give up a lot without giving up anything.
This is not an easy undertaking by any means. Achieving these goals requires a laser focus on the end game across both country's administrations, a deep sense of humility, and consistent acting of Oscar-proportions by all. And if they are successful, Prime Minister Singh and President Obama will not gain much glory, because just as they hatched the plan - they will have to celebrate it behind closed doors. And I could just imagine them with thumbs jutting upward while whispering to each other in a congratulatory tone : “checkmate.”
Related Articles
Pakistan more critical than Afghanistan to U.S. security strategy
Interview With Ahmed Rashid: Afghanistan Needs (And Wants) U.S. Long-Term Commitment
Liberals lash out at Obama for sending more troops to Afghanistan
Cries from the valley: The epic suffering of Afghanistan's children (photo essay)
U.S. awakens anti-Taliban militia groups in Afghanistan
U.S. diplomat resigns over Afghan war and puts Obama on hot seat
Comments
".... if India compromised by relinquishing portions of Kashmir"
What an unabashedly Pro-Pakistani article? So India should give up its national territory so that the US gets its Afghan pipeline. Reward Pakistan for terrorist behavior.
India is never going to give up Kashmir. Will the US return Hawaii to the native Hawaiians first? Will China return Tibet to the Tibetans? Will Pakistan
return land on Durand line to the Afghans?
If they do so first, then they have the rationale to ask India to do the same.
A partnership is not worth compromising strategic sovereignty.
Ni-
I wasn't outright suggesting that, sorry if my point came across the wrong way. I was saying that some that have a surface level understanding would think that its easy. It is probably an issue that might not be able to be settled at all. I think I tried to write a balanced peace - quoting the newsweek article which seems friendly to India, for example.
Unrealistic approach!
Michale -
For Af-Pak crisis, would you recommend that US sits down an talks with Al Qaeda ?
See, talking to Al Qaeda will resolve the deep mistrust and acrimony between Osama and his thugs and Americans. It would allow US to divert its resources from the absurd war-on-terror and focus on US economy. (silly thought isn't it ?)
Your incredulity is starkly apparent - read up on South Asia - books that are authored by Westerners and non-Westerners. That would add much needed gravitas to your writing.
Michael Hughes: you really should not be writing on a subject that reveals your abject ignorance. You write like a typical American who thinks that if the US can strong-arm this state to do that then that state will comply - LOL!!! Consider the 20 year jihad that Pak has waged on India courtesy of previous US administrations, the CIA and failed US policy. The US has behaved abominably in South Asia with the result it has diminished its clout and allowed Pak to develop as the epicenter of terrorism. Do you really think you can just "tell the Indians" what to do. Stop fantasizing and hone up on the history of the Indian sub-continent. The only way America can 'win' is by leaving Afghanistan and taking the 'war' to Pakistan because that is where all problems start and that is where all problems will have to end.
Pakistan is already in illegal possession of half of Kashmir, has given Kashmiri land to the Chinese, and you want India to hand over more of it to "mollify" them in return for good behavior? The notion would be laughable if it were not so arrogant. I'm sure the Indian Prime Minister has already set President Obama right on this score, just in case there was any hallucinating going on in DC.
One of the biggest mistakes analysts or writers in the US make is they take a very short term view - specially of the past - with respect to Afghanistan. Just for instance, with respect to the current conflict, India has been dealing with Afghanistan for some 20 years - ever since the Russians left that country. And yet US analysts seem to very conveniently completely ignore that aspect of events that are etched in that region.
There are few more points of interest:
1) The US and even more so the current "Af-Pak" thinking is the most recent and therefore relatively the most immature of thinking (WRT Afghanistan)
2) Indo-Afghani relations (at whatever level) are centuries old - they predate even the British presence in India
3) Pakistanis cannot replace an Afghani (political) entity with one of their own. They can try, .............
4) What has Kashmir to do with anything in Afghanistan? This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard!! US analysts.
Pakistan has been the problem, not the solution, for peace in South Asia. What do we wish to see in Afghanistan? A country ruled by a talibanized Pakistani army or a functioning multi-ethnic, multi-party free democracy, similar to that of India. Our strategic objective should be model Afghanistan on the lines of India, not a failed, radicalized Pakistan. India can help by offering 250 thousand Indian army troops for stablizing Afghanistan. Of course, we will have to assist India by offering funds and military equipment.
But even if we stabilize Afghanistan with India as a strategic partner, leveraging Indian military, what about where the 9/11 perpetrators actually are? What do we do about Pakistan? We would have to, of course have to threaten force, but eventually we would have to invade, and then we have Afghanistan part II.
The Kashmir issue was solved almost in 48. If the West did'nt play up Pakistani ambitions in the West in the 50's and beyond. The West post WW2 underestimated Indian resolve to stick with the truth. Kashmir on the Indian side has had so many elections many on the basis of it's accession to India right from the 50's. Kashmir is governed, policed by Muslims. A popular separatist leader stood in elections recently..and lost. What the US must realize is Pakistan exists only for one purpose: Not Kashmir. It's India's destruction. Its destroying the idea of India as a pluralist, democratic nation. An idea India wants to export in a neighbourhood sinking under theocratic and totalitarian ideologies. Myanmar, Nepal, Afghanistan, Bangladesh are reeling under such influence. India must counter them, by showcasing itself as an alternative to such ideologies in the region. That alone will bring about lasting peace to the region. Making compromises as what is implied at some level, means making ide
Making compromises with Afghanistan at this point specially with regards to the growing Talibanization of Pakistan, means a compromise in ideological values. Pakistan may like backward ideologies to set up base in the neighbourhood as these are ideologically inimical to India's ethos and thus can be manipulated from Islamabad. Hand them Kashmir on a platter and they'll still do that. Thats what the West must realized is being played out. Democracy, peace, pluralism, stability are not part of Pakistan's game plan in the region, ably supported by China. Micheal check out Asia's history for the last 7000 years and you'll find it was India that culturally influenced all of Asia, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, Tibet, Cambodia and China itself too. Chinese and their proxy power in Pakistan want to erase history. Once again they've barked up the wrong tree. Understanding events from this perspective, clears the entire geostrategic fog in the region.
I just published another article that touches on these points even more based on Obama strategy- its under related articles above "Pakistan more critical than Afghanistan to U.S. security strategy"
Great!!!!!!!!!!!! USA along with Pakistan destroyed/Raped/looted Afghanistan through their proxies mujahideens for 30 years and created world wide terror network.Now USA and west want sacrifices from India in the form of Kashmir on platter to Pakistan so that their pet can stabilize Afghanistan.Its a blackmail.Usa and west along with their pet Pakistan trying very hard to link up Afghan solution to Kashmir problem when both are not at all inter-related.its like saying Let USA give India California,NY state and Texas on platter then India will give Kashmir to Pakistan and hence US can see durable peace and stability in Afghanistan.But when Pakistan can't stabilize itself how can it be able to stabilize Afghanistan.A failed country with economic failure living on aid will stabilize Afghanistan.Are Americans brain dead or they are just playing up India.
well its the USA who needs India's strategic partnership not other way round.Indians have seen how USA has destroyed its 60 years old partnership with Pakistan.USA has used Pakistan as use and throw condom.Sorry USA we are not interested in your partnership.Anyway USA is going down fast.we don't want to be on the sinking ship.
Guys bad behavior always pays up in good booty.Neville Chamberlain Appeased Hitler resulting in WW-2.USA is appeasing Pakistan i don't know what it will bring to world.i'm sure it wont be peace and stability.coz this appeasement will sure gonna embolden Pakistani Islamic.So why not India too throw up troubles for USA and west for its interests in Indian ocean.we can sure play Russian roulette with usa in IOR.And regarding kashmir its the USA more than pakistan,which want to see kashmir go out of indian control.So that usa can get military base in there.that way usa will be more readily be able to stir up trouble in Tibet.by having foothold in Kashmir usa can keep an eye on both china and India.Thats why we are seeing all democrats of Albright school of thoughts returning in Obama administration.Its the open known fact that former USA secretary of state Ms.Albright in Clinton administration used to meet All party hurriyat conference leaders in new dehli.And she herself is back now
The point is not that the US cannot succeed in Afghanistan without Pakistan. It cannot succeed WITH Pakistan. Think about it: we pay the Pakistanis to help us fight the Taliban. They take the money and use to fund the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Lashkar against India.
India is not going to relinquish anything in Kashmir either to help the US with its no-win strategy in Afghanistan or to have a strategic relationship with the US. What use is the relationship if it involves giving up territorial integrity?
What should really be maddening is why we the US are funding our own enemies and trying to figure out why we are not winning.
".. What do we do about Pakistan? .."
Making progress - no mention of Kashmir.
Actually Afghanistan has been its own problem for centuries - all internal. Kashmir is an issue, but a more recent one. The two are NOT related in any respect. Pakistan is trying to tie the two for her own meaningless end.
There is an article in the Washington Post ("U.S. offers new role for Pakistan") that is worth a read. Obama has shifted from the thrust of the article you have written - and rightly so.
WRT Pakistan, the question is where does Pakistan want to head in the future. There are two (or perhaps more) thinking. The one that I subscribe to is that Pakistan wants to be the center for Islam and wants to revive the Islamic dream of Islamizing the sub continent. To that end Pakistan wants US help WRT Kashmir. BUT, the end or goal is not just Kashmir. It is all of "India".
What is of interest here is that they have Chinese support on something similar: fragmenting India. Reasons are dif
MH,
It is my humble opinion that there is a LOT more common between India and the US - specially a convergence of interest in the region. Anyone following regional developments have witnessed a lot of cooperation, perhaps not to the extent India would like it.
However, my feel has always been that IF we were to let each nation follow their inherent nature, then:
a) Pakistan would be the odd man, and
b) Pakistani behavior would lead to her own collapse - it is just a matter of time
What is key to all this is the Pakistani inclination to use "non-state actors" to drive state policy. Such actors have existed with support of the Pakistani state for about 20 years. What is of great interest is that India called them "terrorists" some 20 years ago and Pakistan and the US subscribed to the words "freedom fighters".
The US started calling them "terrorists" only AFTER 911!!!! ONLY after the US was hurt by these very elements!!!!
Cont in next post.................
..... continued.
The kicker is that Pakistan can use "terrorists" to wage low intensity war within India and that by itself should not harm the US (among other nations). We, in the US, can sit back and call it an Indo-Pak affair, etc, etc, etc.
HOWEVER, when the same set of "non-state actors" turn their attention to other state (than India) ONLY then do these states re-categorize these "non-state actors" to "terrorists". Please read the Washington Post, where Obama has NAMED such terrorists groups in 2009, while India was asking for such a classification about 15 years ago!!!
the problem lies in the way Pakistan and these "non-state actors" think what their role is. While Pakistan wants them to use them as military assets against India, BOTH Pakistan and these groups want to convert the sub-continent to Islam (a thing that they could not do for 800 years).
People such as you have got associated with this problem ONLY because such groups view the entire world for conversion
Most of the posters have said so eloquently, but I think Michael Hughes's audacious but ignorant statement that India relinquish Kashmir so that Pakistan's anti-India blood thirst can be quenched and then will do whatever US asks it to do; is a colonial concoction that is gaining momentum by the day. Indians must beware of this diabolical strategy. In other words, US interests are so paramount, that India must destroy itself by surrendering to the terrorist ideology of Pakistan.
Pakistan has legitimate concern of being encircled by India on eastern border and a hostile uncivilized pro Indian Afghanistan on western border. With that in mind, one is living in fools’ world to expect Pakistan to not oppose Indian designs. India is blocking river waters in Indian held Kashmir, a life line to Pakistan agriculture and support insurgency in Baluchistan. Without a regional approach you will get nowhere in Afghanistan.
Indian backers and those who think power can solve everything will not like to hear such comments …. Just keep watching. Killing of innocent people and spending taxpayer money in the region will lead us nowhere. In the end I pray for sanity and humanity to triumph.
mma wishes "humanity to triumph." I agree! Insanyiat over Islamiyat anyday! Thanks mma! There is no place for extremist and exclusivist idealogies in the 21st century. India epitomizes the inclusivist ideology while Pakistan extremist and exclusivisit. It is a no-brainer. Pakistan must slowly begin to confirm to the pluralistic, democratic system of the India kind. It is for Pakistan's own good. Really! mma, you surely do not wish for a Sharia based Islamic law to rule Pakistan, do you? Please respond.
And BTW mma, India is only providing "moral" support to the people of disputed Baluchistan.
Michael Hughes is trying a very poor game of psy ops. Trying to convince Indians and teh world so that the US can continue having it's drug routes, watch over the subcontinent and also get it's gas pipelines.
You are a terrorist apologist and manipulator, not an analyst.
These anglos have always compromised indic interests. India was torn apart in 1947 to sate the Islamic centers of the world (They certainly did not create Pakistan out of US territory).
As the last indigenous civilization of the world they want to destroy us. Nothing new. As someone said, colonial mindset continues
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!